From: Joao Moreira <joao@overdrivepizza.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org,
peterz@infradead.org, jpoimboe@redhat.com,
andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, samitolvanen@google.com,
mark.rutland@arm.com, hjl.tools@gmail.com,
alyssa.milburn@linux.intel.com, ndesaulniers@google.com,
gabriel.gomes@linux.intel.com, rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 10/11] linux/interrupt: Fix prototype matching property
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 15:14:02 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2d7e424f13682295f655faf9b8c8f1cf@overdrivepizza.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202204191942.3C273AB@keescook>
>> Fix this CFI policy violation by removing the function pointer union
>> in
>> the tasklet struct.
>
> The good news is that tasklet is on the way out the door[1], so this
> may
> quickly become a non-issue, but also to that end, this fix is hardly a
> problem for a deprecated API...
You are right, sorry for the noise. I looked a bit further and the
problem I saw was actually caused by a compiler bug fusing similar
instructions/basic blocks. It was fixed when I later stumbled on the
problem again and added the following lines (668 and 669 in
llvm/lib/CodeGen/MachineInstr.cpp) to the compiler, but without properly
realizing what was actually behind the previous issue. Hopefully this is
at least a good heads-up about possible pitfalls to other people (@Sami)
implementing CFI in the compiler.
https://github.com/lvwr/llvm-project/commit/0a22ca42877fd156ce95145b11f29c642092dbb7#diff-92843a1f037a9a1e56f92242c4e1746a1166a6b7044ad47a0b4fd2f4b1c6a359R668-R669
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-04-20 22:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-20 0:42 [RFC PATCH 00/11] Kernel FineIBT Support joao
2022-04-20 0:42 ` [RFC PATCH 01/11] x86: kernel FineIBT joao
2022-04-29 1:37 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2022-05-02 17:17 ` Joao Moreira
2022-05-03 22:02 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2022-05-04 2:19 ` Joao Moreira
2022-05-04 10:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-05-04 17:04 ` Peter Collingbourne
2022-05-04 18:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-05-05 0:28 ` Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-05 7:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-05-08 8:29 ` Kees Cook
2022-05-09 11:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-04-20 0:42 ` [RFC PATCH 02/11] kbuild: Support FineIBT build joao
2022-04-20 0:42 ` [RFC PATCH 03/11] objtool: Support FineIBT offset fixes joao
2022-04-20 0:42 ` [RFC PATCH 04/11] x86/module: Support FineIBT in modules joao
2022-04-20 0:42 ` [RFC PATCH 05/11] x86/text-patching: Support FineIBT text-patching joao
2022-04-20 0:42 ` [RFC PATCH 06/11] x86/bpf: Support FineIBT joao
2022-04-20 0:42 ` [RFC PATCH 07/11] x86/lib: Prevent UACCESS call warning from objtool joao
2022-04-20 0:42 ` [RFC PATCH 08/11] x86/ibt: Add CET_TEST module for IBT testing joao
2022-04-20 0:42 ` [RFC PATCH 09/11] x86/FineIBT: Add FINEIBT_TEST module joao
2022-04-20 0:42 ` [RFC PATCH 10/11] linux/interrupt: Fix prototype matching property joao
2022-04-20 2:45 ` Kees Cook
2022-04-20 22:14 ` Joao Moreira [this message]
2022-04-20 0:42 ` [RFC PATCH 11/11] driver/int3400_thermal: Fix prototype matching joao
2022-04-20 2:55 ` Kees Cook
2022-04-20 22:28 ` Joao Moreira
2022-04-20 23:04 ` Kees Cook
2022-04-20 23:12 ` Joao Moreira
2022-04-20 23:25 ` Kees Cook
2022-04-21 0:28 ` Joao Moreira
2022-04-20 2:42 ` [RFC PATCH 00/11] Kernel FineIBT Support Kees Cook
2022-04-20 22:50 ` Joao Moreira
2022-04-20 7:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-04-20 15:17 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2022-04-20 17:12 ` Nick Desaulniers
2022-04-20 22:40 ` Joao Moreira
2022-04-21 7:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-04-21 15:23 ` Joao Moreira
2022-04-21 15:35 ` H.J. Lu
2022-04-21 22:11 ` Fangrui Song
2022-04-21 22:26 ` H.J. Lu
2022-04-20 23:34 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2d7e424f13682295f655faf9b8c8f1cf@overdrivepizza.com \
--to=joao@overdrivepizza.com \
--cc=alyssa.milburn@linux.intel.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=gabriel.gomes@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com \
--cc=samitolvanen@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®